Wasn't Shankara supposed to have been an incarnation
of Shiva?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Meltzer" <rm...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
>
> >Yes I have read Bhaja Govindam. Shankara is famous for being an advaita
> >teacher but also having the ability to have the devotional aspect of bhakti.
> > Just because he refers to Govinda in that treatise does not make him a
> >vaishnavite. And just because Narayana is mentioned in the tradition does
> >not make him one either
> Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad? There are no Krishna/Vishnu
> images there. There is however a huge shiva lingam in the middle of the
> ashram. No self respecting Vaishnavite would a shiva lingam without a vishnu
> or krishna statue.
> And have you been to Jyotir math? No Vishnu images there either.
>
> The point is you know nothing of the tradition of which you claim to speak.
> Everything about the shankaracharya tradition is shaivite.
>
> Anyone else what to chime on this other than Vaj. I am open to someone else
> who is knowledgable to comment on this. Vaj thinks he knows something about
> this, but I don't believe he does.
> >
> > On May 31, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote:
> >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
> > >> Vaj,
> > > What makes you think that the shankaracharya tradition is a
> > > "vaishnavite" group?
> >
> > Because the guru-parampara originates with Narayana and Shankara was a
> > Vaishnavite.
> >
> > Have you read Shankara's Bhaja Govindam?
> >
> > > The shankaracharya order has always been a shiva tradition, not a
> > > Vishnu tradition (vaishnavites are vishnu/krishna followers).
> > > Its obvious even from the name. Shankara is a name of shiva, not
> > > vishnu.
> >
> > Shankara just means "do gooder" or "one who does good". It is an
> > adjective used for Shiva.
> >
> > > For someone who presents himself on this forum as being
> > > knowledgeable about this stuff, at least get your facts straight.
> >
> > You don't sound very familiar with Shaivism.
> >
>
